A view on Genesis

**Roller** · 07-25-2005 01:54 PM

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
Roller I wasn't really talking about the big bang, but it does not matter if it was compressed or what form it was in. The point is, It was already there.

Your entire model of evolution just fell apart now.....
You can't say everything was potentially here out of no-where already, and at the same time say consiousness is an accident of a chaotic form of progressive events of chance resulting in a robotic universe. Life being the illusional byproduct of this chaos. You cannot say there is NO form of intelligence guiding the process and structure of everything, if you say it was already here to start with. that doesn't make sense.

1: The fact that the matter was already there does not in any way prove the existence of a god, or an intelligent being.

2: I never said that consciousness is an accident of a chaotic form of events.

Consciousness is the result of evolution, evolution is the result of life. Life is (to the best of our current understanding) the product of chaotic events. It didn't need a reason to exist.
You seem to mistakenly think that evolution is chaotic and unorganised, and from this chaos you see the complexity and diversity of current life. Evolution is not chaotic at all, it is merely the survival of the organisms most suited to the environment. The environment is chaotic, and beyond the organism's control, and in this way it shapes the way life evolves.

So what guides evolution? Nothing, other than the rules of evolution itself - survival of the most apt. What shapes evolution? Chaos, ie the uncontrollable chaos of the environment around all life, whether it be the weather (haha), or geophysical events (volcanoes etc).

I think that this is the greatest misconception for those that argue for intelligent design. In my opinion, they look to the world and life around them - highly complex, varied and evolved. They think that there is some underlying intelligence that mus have shaped life, otherwise why the variety and diversity and complexity? They overlook the fact that their 'underlying intelligence' is nothing more than the thing that they are arguing against - evolution. It is evolution that provides all the reasoning they are looking for, but fail to see. Life reproduces, but as it does so it is shaped by external, oncontrollable and chaotic events in the environment around it. As this happens, the theory of evolution guides the life forms through another form of chaos, mutation within a species.

So in reply to your above statement, Nirvana, I can say this: Evolution of life is the progress of chaotic events (mutation, environment), guided by what you would call a 'higher intelligence', the rule that life that is most suited to it's environment will live to reproduce. Consciousness is a product of millions of years of evolution, and serves the purpose of increasing a life-form's chance of survival.

There, I think I have come to a sufficient conclusion to that statement regarding evolution of life. Please note that the evolution of life is much different to the the formation of life. In reply to this please do not change the subject - you seem to be switching from the beggining of the universe to the beginning of life to evolution - all of which are completley seperate things - so often that I can't keep up, and it ends up confusing.

I agree with bradybaker, something can indeed come from nothing. It is happening all around you, and (as far as we know) all through the universe. Ever heard of quantum physics? ( I think that's what you're getting at there bradybaker, am I right?

) According to quantum physics, (and proven), particles pop into existence from nothing constantly. I aren't the most knowledgeable about the whole theory, so that's where i'll leave it for now while I do some reading on it.

**FoolofJoy** · 07-29-2005 02:20 AM

Originally posted by AirRick101
I was reading Reader's Digest earlier today at work, and saw an interview with Tom Hanks...once question was about his view on the origins of the universe and the brilliance of outer space (cuz of the Apollo 13 reference). If it either had divine intelligence involved or was totally random, he said \"Either one takes a tremendous leap of faith.\" I don't mean to choose either side, it never works, but that response really sparked my mind. Saying it's all random is the gruff intellectual answer for thinkers, but I can't go with it all the way, either. Hanks concluded with going extremely on either side seems to cheapen the view of the universe, and enjoys the mystery of it. Hey, I liked it. I just hope the cameras didn't catch me reading during work...

Hanks concluded with going extremely on either side seems to cheapen the view of the universe, and enjoys the mystery of it.

It seems almost like the mystery of the universe works as a necessary catalyst for the unableing of humans to continue evolving. If we could figure out the mystery of the universe as if it were an internal combustion engine (which seems magical to a kid), we would lose our interest in it and along with it perhaps the motivation to progress with our lives. This would be significant.

**Placebo** · 07-29-2005 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Roller
I agree with bradybaker, something can indeed come from nothing. It is happening all around you, and (as far as we know) all through the universe. Ever heard of quantum physics? ( I think that's what you're getting at there bradybaker, am I right? ) According to quantum physics, (and proven), particles pop into existence from nothing constantly.

Interesting point. We are judging this whole idea of 'where did it come from on the way that we EXPECT the world to work.
And as you will know if you look into quantum mechanics ... it's pretty darn unintuitive.

I liked your points on evolution to not require an underlying intelligence

**Nirvana Starseed** · 07-30-2005 08:30 AM

2: I never said that consciousness is an accident of a chaotic form of events.

my bad if I said you said that.

Life is (to the best of our current understanding) the product of chaotic events.

life is consiousness. So you just said that it is the product of chaotic events, which is close to saying it is an accident of chaotic events.

You seem to mistakenly think that evolution is chaotic and unorganised, and from this chaos you see the complexity and diversity of current life.

thats not what I think at all.

So what guides evolution? Nothing, other than the rules of evolution itself

So something does guide it......the 'rules' of evolution.

- survival of the most apt. What shapes evolution? Chaos,

If you believe in chaos shaping evolution. Than you cannot believe in cause and effect. because cause and effect is not chaos.

I think that this is the greatest misconception for those that argue for intelligent design.

what do you mean by arguing for intelligent design. I am just looking to discuss with people the truth if they are not to closed minded or have an ego complex.

the thing that they are arguing against - evolution.

I am not arguing against evolution.

I agree with bradybaker, something can indeed come from nothing. It is happening all around you, and (as far as we know) all through the universe. Ever heard of quantum physics?

yes. You must not understand it.
I also think you are underestimating what I am saying. I admit I have not said it very well.

( I think that's what you're getting at there bradybaker, am I right? ) According to quantum physics, (and proven), particles pop into existence from nothing constantly.

Just because you observe something coming out of nothing it does not mean that it is really coming out of nothing. You have seen magic tricks havn't you? You know they are not real. Yet you are so quick to accept these 'particles' are really coming out of nothing.
You do not stop at that conclusion at any rate. You then have to understand why or how they seem to be coming out of nothing, which will lead you to a greater understanding.

Alot of progress has been made in this area, you should look into it.
[/quote]

**InTheMoment** · 08-01-2005 04:58 PM

I'll try not too cut-in too much on the responses intended for Roller and/or Universal Mind, but there are a few things that I need to clarify.

Nirvana wrote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

I am just looking to discuss with people the truth if they are not to closed minded or have an ego complex.

yes. You must not understand it.
I also think you are underestimating what I am saying. I admit I have not said it very well.

You then have to understand why or how they seem to be coming out of nothing, which will lead you to a greater understanding.

Alot of progress has been made in this area, you should look into it. [/b]

[/b][/quote]

I'm very curious as to where you derive your knowledge from...could you please provide some links to something/anything that supports your views?

You've made quite a number of rebuttals to Roller's argument...most of which were heavily opinionated and smacked of "off the cuff " responses with little too no foundation.

I'm no master debater, but I do know that it discredits your argument when you provide a bunch of vague and condescending statements too make your case.

Your magic analogy was probably the best example I've seen so far in arguing your point...outside of that, you should consider providing more substance to your argument.

**FoolofJoy** · 08-01-2005 11:20 PM

Perhaps the question of "Origin of the Universe" is an epic undertaking that can be more easily advanced upon after reflection on another question. Have we even learned the origin (at birth) of MIND, or destination (after death) of mind? After all, mind is right here right now is it not. But where is mind located, in our brains? In the world around us? In the Universe? or all of these?. Can we even prove it exists. I mention this matter of mind because I believe the answer to Origin of Mind may be a stepping stone to answering or at least greater understanding of the larger question (read: topic of this thread) of Origin of the Universe.

Good discussion y'all. Keep it up and my apologies if this is considered off-topic by any.

Cheers,
John

**Rakkantekimusouka** · 08-02-2005 12:22 AM

As apparently evidenced by the descriptions of Near-Death Experiences/Out-Of-Body Experiences (NDEs/OBEs), the mind obviously does not solely reside in the brain -- rather, in every cell of the body; it is a substance that can wholly exit the body, as well, and travel to other places in the blink of an eye.

The mind and the cosmos are directly connected. That is the first step in realizing the ultimate truth...that is where Philosophy and Physics reunite in al their incandescent, logical glory.

Do I come off as stoned about now?

**FoolofJoy** · 08-02-2005 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
As apparently evidenced by the descriptions of Near-Death Experiences/Out-Of-Body Experiences (NDEs/OBEs), the mind obviously does not solely reside in the brain -- rather, in every cell of the body; it is a substance that can wholly exit the body, as well, and travel to other places in the blink of an eye.

The mind and the cosmos are directly connected. That is the first step in realizing the ultimate truth...that is where Philosophy and Physics reunite in al their incandescent, logical glory.

Do I come off as stoned about now?

Ramu, we accept things based on intuition and that gives us a kind of faith. Therefore my question was not really directed to you silly. I want to know how those of us here think, who choose to accept only what science can prove in relation to the nature of MIND. I want to add there is nothing wrong with this method, in fact I believe I can learn from this more scientific veiwpoint, hence my asking the question.

Peace,
John

**Nirvana Starseed** · 08-02-2005 03:23 PM

Inthemoment.

I'm very curious as to where you derive your knowledge from...could you please provide some links to something/anything that supports your views?[/b]

You could start by asking Alice. hahaha get it? when you go chasing rabits, ask alice.

http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/toc.html

I have other links. But it's pointless to give you them all at once when there is so much to read. If you want more after all that I'll give you more of these links that generally support my beliefs and understanding. Ofcourse I do not agree with everything. But the general idea is there to figure out what is true and what resonates with you.

If you were looking for a more scientific approach. I have links on mental science, mixed with modern physics and such that explain about how the brain works and the unified theory of the universe. And other speculations, reasoning ect. I don't know if you were serious when you asked me about links so well see.

if you want to find out things your not going to find out much by only sticking to what you consider to be solid orthadox scientific evidence, and shutting out everything else. You have to use evreything within you to come to a decision about things the best way you can. And just follow that. It is much quicker this way to keep an open mind about things and be willing to throw everything you thought was right, away. In light of higher understanding.

**InTheMoment** · 08-02-2005 04:00 PM

Nirvana wrote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

You could start by asking Alice. hahaha get it? when you go chasing rabits, ask alice.

http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/toc.html

I have other links. But it's pointless to give you them all at once when there is so much to read. If you want more after all that I'll give you more of these links that generally support my beliefs and understanding. Ofcourse I do not agree with everything. But the general idea is there to figure out what is true and what resonates with you. [/b]

[/b][/quote]

Thanks, that adds much clarity to your reasoning...and yes, I am familiar with Alice Bailey and her blend of dogmatic idealogies.

I must admit I've only heard of her teachings in a former debate circle I frequented and within that forum, even certain "New Agers" denounced her teachings. Apparently her writings smack of antisemantic stereotypes (mostly pertaining to Jews) and have in turn, put her in poor light amongst most critics.

I for one will do some reading on my own into her works and try to formulate my own opinion in this regards. Thanks again for providing some source data in relation to your argument...now we're getting somewhere.